Jump to content

Talk:Kenyanthropus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Untitled

This article reads more like a Meave Leakey press release than scientific reporting. Without attribution or support, it lists as facts many assertions still widely contested, such as that these fossils represent a new species, let alone a new genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.106.11.172 (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I added some information to the Kenyanthropus platyops article. As it was, the article was short, and did not include the anthropological significance of the find. I attempted to create a re-direct from Flat-faced man to Kenyanthropus (a term with which the non-anthropologist individuals would be most familiar), but I couldn't get it to work. Would someone else give it a try? I'll check back later. Thanks! Firecircle (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All you need to do is create a link someplace like this: Flat-faced man. then follow the link and add the redirect info. (Go here to see what it looks like.) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firecircle (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Hey, great! I tried it and it works great. Thanks for the help and the info (as well as the fast response). Firecircle (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Auto writes.

"Taxonomy

The fossils of Kenyanthropus platyops indicate that hominins were more taxonomically diverse during the middle Pliocene."

Ummm - 'more taxonomically diverse - than - what, exactly, please? Possibly H. sapiens today, which may not indicate huge diversity . . . . .

Auto wrote. 2014 07 05 2141 Z. 81.157.245.112 (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australopithecus platyops

The justifications presented for sinking this into Australopithecus are terrible. Is there any primary literature that suggests this? 23.242.48.53 (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenyanthropus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its discoverers distorted science to prove speciation

It was a subspecies of Australopithecus afarensis. Due to climate change we had less species. Even if one actual evolutionalry branch survived, that doesn't look weird. Climate change had a huge impact because it forced plants also to change. Bottleneck phenomena can be explained. Skeleton differences doesn't mean that at rare occasions these species didn't copulate. If they copulated sparsely over millions of years... that isn't actually a sparce phenomenon, but a non immediate panmictic phenomenon. Non immediate panmixia which has some patterns, is an extremely crucial evolutionary tool, for example your particular subspecies that way, might get immunologically more robust, but without to become silly (by not getting the retarded brain genes = wrong timing of neuronal cell motions [because many cerebral cells travel inside the brain], and wrong timing of axonal branching in the brain, different patters of branching and slightly different neuroendocrinology) as the other species that finally got extinct. You get periodically extremely few genes of the other subspecies. But for millions of years (thus the impact is huge, but the rare patterns of mingling are beneficial - it acts as a sieve/a filter of non beneficial genes).

the partonizing part of the theory I mentioned (superior race of "us") is wrong but they created a patronizing theory against another patronizing theory

Things are probabilistic and statistical... After 3 million years of separation, species copulate extremely rarer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8453:800:75BA:931C:93AA:4BD1 (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rudolfensis

No mention of the fact that some scientists think Homo rudolfensis should be assigned to Kenyanthropus? 216.255.165.198 (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australopithecus predating Australopithecus ??? The cake's older'n the cake....

A. bahrelghazali, Ardipithecus, Orrorin, and Sahelanthropus, which has complicated discussions of hominin diversity,[3] though the latter three have not been met with much resistance on account of their greater age (all predating Australopithecus)

Oops, no, reading it three times over I guess I understood. It's three other genera predating the later genus Australopithecus. MistaPPPP (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kenyanthropus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 18:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • apes anatomically differ in areas related to chewing – "differ in features"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specimens sit" – is this colloquial? If such a formulation is not used in the literature (is it?), I think it needs to be reformulated.
I mean, you didn't seem to have a problem with "sitting on 3.53 million year old sediments" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do question all of them. Can you demonstrate that these are not colloquial speech? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you've never seen this before. Looking up "fossils sit on million years old deposits" I find a book [1] "... the age of the fossils, which come from deposits that sit directly atop a thick layer of volcanic rock radiometrically dated to 1.85 million years ago." Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK: If it sounds natural to a native speaker, I take your word for it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meave and colleagues – Meave Leakey, otherwise it would be a surname?
Meave as opposed to Louise Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, I was asking to provide the full name for consistency. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • a slew – Maybe not use this phrase two times in close succession, use something else the second time?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They conceded Kenyanthropus could be – Who conceded?
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link at first mention: braincase and nasal, topographical scans, anterior
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • reliably reconstructed,. – something missing?
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • rather than a new genus or species. – "a separate species" would be more precise I think, it is not new anymore.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response, anthropologist Fred Spoor and Meave and Louise Leakey produced much more detailed digital topographical scans – ok, but what do they conclude?
"in order to more accurately correct the distortion and better verify the distinctness of Kenyanthropus" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As formulated in the article, that was their objective before they started the study. This is not necessarily identical with the results, this is why I think it needs reformulation (if these are the results, place them at the end?). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're saying. What does "place them at the end" mean? It's already at the end of the paragraph Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is "in order to". This would be the objective, what they hope to find out, why they started the study. Instead, we need to state what they did find out. You could formulate like this: This allowed to more accurately correct the distortion and demonstrated the distinctness of Kenyanthropus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their recommendations have been largely ignored – your quote says "dismissed", not "ignored", this is a difference.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the braincase shifted downwards and backwards, the nasal region to its right, – that means, to the right relative to the braincase?
relative to the original position of the nasal region Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the article is currently saying. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what is it saying? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it says "relative to the braincase", as said. Change "its" to "the", for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get what you're saying now, done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is wholly unclear –> "It is unclear" or "It is unknown"; "wholly" seems bloat that does not add anything.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenyanthropus has relatively a flat face – "a relatively flat face"?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • including subnasally between the nose and the mouth – That "subnasally" confuses; since you explain it anyways, can we just get rid of it?
I like to include the actual term Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't become clear that you have both the term and the explanation for this term. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why not? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no hint, no bracket, no "i.e.". If you don't know the term at all, you can't know that your explanation is an explanation rather than an independent, additional information. For example, "including dorsally between the eyes" – is "between the eyes" and explanation for "dorsally"? No! But in your very similar case it is. The reader can't know this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a comma. And, if you say "dorsally between the eyes", then you're defining "dorsally" to be "between the eyes" Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. See [2] for plenty of examples where the second is not defining the first. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well it's a bit different for dorsal because it can refer to a pre-defined region of a body part, or just mean up Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • including subnasally between the nose and the mouth (the nasoalveolar clivus) which – "which" does not have a noun to refer to
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (on the upper end for Paranthropus), – I don't follow
you don't seem to have a problem later when I say "on the lower end"? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"of variation"? Then you need to state that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • set of pillars on either border of the clivus – I think this is incomprehensible without further explanation
better? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • more frequently seen in Paranthropus – more frequently than what?
than other hominins Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to state that, the reader can't guess this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
did you think I was talking about pickles? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to review this article or not? Please stay constructive. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying it's completely unnecessary since the entire time I've been comparing between other hominins, so when I now say something like "more like Paranthropus", it should be clear that it's relative to other hominins and not like orangutans or something weird. But whatever, added Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing. It was clear to me that you compare to other hominins, but it was not clear to which other hominins you compare. Just based on the formulation you used, you seem to compare to Kenyanthropus only. That doesn't seem to make sense when considering that the latter only has one skull, but even if the reader notices this and guesses that you compare with all the other hominins instead, it really disrupts reading flow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KNM-WT40000 retains the ancestral ape premolar tooth root morphology, – can the derived condition be mentioned as well, for comparison?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • some of the species indeterminate specimens – "species" confuses here, remove?
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These materials originated within only 100 m (330 ft) of the site – "within" implies an area, not a linear distance?
fixed Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Koobi Fora site possibly sat at minimum 36 m (118 ft) below the surface. – what is the Koobi Fora site and why is it relevant here?
I gave lake area, I don't see the issue with giving an idea of lake depth Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that "Koobi Fora" comes out of nowhere. Why is it there? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm talking about the entire region, I'm allowed to bring up sites that aren't Lomekwi Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are, but you should add an explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I only see now that the last point has already been addressed (I was just waiting for that). So we are done here, nice work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenyanthropus&oldid=1193693426"